Avneet Goyal vs Union Of India on 17 May, 2019
8. Counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the appointment
having been made almost one year after the statement made by
the counsel for the respondents before this Court, is of no
consequence. Allowing the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator
would infact be granting benefit to the respondent of its own
wrong. He submits that Section 29A of the Act which provides
that the arbitration proceedings must culminate in an Award
within the period of one year, would stand defeated if such
appointments are to be allowed. He further submits that
Mr.Ramesh Chander has been appointed as an Arbitrator in
more than 115 cases by the respondents and therefore, would be
ineligible to act as an Arbitrator. He further placed reliance on
the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by this Court in
OMP(T)(Comm.) No.131/2018 titled Surinder Kumar Garg vs.
Union of India & Ors., wherein this Court had appointed an
O.M.P. (T)(Comm.) Nos.45-46-47-48/2019 Page 4
Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between
the parties therein. He submits that the disputes in that
petition are similar to the ones that have arisen between the
parties herein and therefore, it would be in the fitness of things
that the same Arbitrator is appointed by this Court.